Who Loses by Lost Cheques.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLVIII, Issue 20, 13 November 1912, Page 50

Who Loses by Lost Cheques.

This point is dealt with by “The Accountants' Magazine" as follows: “When a cheque goes astray and happens to get cashed by a fraudulent third party, on whom does the loss fall —on the sender of the cheque, that is, on the debtor, who if the la-- fails on him will have to pay over again, or on the person to whom the cheque was sent, that is. the creditor? The law is that it is the debtor's duty to go to the creditor and pay his debt. Till the creditor is actually paid the debt is not discharged. If the debtor chooses to make payment by way of a remittance by post, that is all right provided his remittance reaches the creditor, but if it does not. then that is a risk he has taken, and any loss falls on him. But if the creditor has requested a remittance by post, the result is different- he i- then considered as having taken the risk on himself. 11l the case of Thairlwall v. The Great Northern Kailway Company, decided last year, a dividend warrant was lost in the post. It had been sent to the plaintiff in pursuance of a resolution that dividends should be posted passed at a meeting to which lie had been invited. It was held that he had impliedly requested that the warrant should be sentby post, and therefore the loss was his —the company were not. bound to issue a second warrant. But. in Maerobert v. The Glasgow Corporation, just decided in the Glasgow Sheriff Court, the los; warrant there in question had just been posted as usual, and it was found that ahis was not equivalent to payment, the addressee not having requested payment in that way. The Corporation were ordered to pay again.”